All of the Yakuza games are basically, collections of well made mini games that turn each beat-em-up campaign into a hundred hours of fun. But among those, the Cabaret Club and Pocket Circuit RC race-car games from Yakuza 0 and Yakuza Kiwami, are probably my favs.
I second this. Triple Triad is so much fun! Fun fact, they have it in Final Fantasy XIV and it’s so much fun to collect the cards and play other people. They even have tournaments.
I disagree but I understand you… I don’t know why it didn’t click for me as an old Yu-Gi-Oh! Player (that is the only card game I have ever played… And several minutes of a “Duel Master” card game for GBA… Perhaps that one would trigger some old memories for some it was based on an anime too).
It suffers the same problem every trading card game does: if you don’t have the best cards, you lose. Skill and strategy and even luck are nothing compared to just having better cards.
IMO pay-to-win mechanics work really well for a game-within-a-game since rather than exploiting the player for money, they are exploiting the player character for effort, which can lead you to go on more epic quests
Personally I found it really annoying that halfway through the game when I decided to give gwent a go, i got absolutely trashed and was basically tole to go back to the beginning of the game and redo a bunch of areas I’d already spent too much time in.
Not to mention none of the gwent quests were epic in the slightest. They were literally “play these people, if you win you get a card”.
That’s a really superficial take. For instance in MTG every format has “must have” cards, like fetchlands or shock lands (or dual lands), but beyond that there’s no “best” cards. There are “meta” cards that go into a specific meta deck and when you have one meta deck playing against another that’s when skill and strategy come into play. And it’s not like you must build a meta deck to play, you can build anti-meta decks or lab out a completely new meta deck. The problem is that such a level of deck building skills go way beyond what 99% of players are capable of doing. Even some of the best players in the world suck at deck building, because is an entirely different skillset to playing the game.
But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The modern meta looks very different to when I got into MTG 10+ years ago. Some are still around in some form, like regular Tron turned into mono-g tron and burn turned into boros burn. But the bans on Twin and Pod have killed those decks while Jund and Affinity have dropped out of the meta. In those place we have brand new decks like amulet titan or 5c Omnath. Somewhere in that timeframe we also got Eggs that was literally jank cards thrown into a pile of meta-defining solitaire playing, and then it got banned for being too boring.
You can get meta cards to build a meta deck but you can’t explicitly buy “best” cards because a new combination of “bad” cards can create a meta deck and then those become the new “best” cards.
The one with a better deck wins. If a homebrew deck goes against a meta deck then it’s likely the meta deck wins, but if you homebrew a deck with meta cards vs homebrewing without meta cards it comes down to how well the deck is built. A homebrew with all the meta cards but without any game plan or poor mana source distribution is going to do worse than a homebrew without meta cards, but with a clear plan and cards that support that plan.
People not building their own decks and instead just copying meta decks is another discussion.
I really liked the hacking puzzles in Half-Life Alyx. There was a nice variety to the different type of puzzles that could appear, and the difficulty never felt like it got out of hand.
Strategy games also tend to implicitly have it, in that you can team up the weaker player with a strong AI player.
Or sometimes there’s also fun options, like a map where you can place the strong player into the fortified center and they have to defend against three weaker players at the same time. That can serve as a handicap, but the asymmetry also just means that it’s less obvious and therefore less frustrating, who’s better.
Generally, I’m in favor of having such handicap features, of course, but I feel like it’s even better when the game’s design is just naturally less brutally competitive.
For example, in Gang Beasts, yes, you’re competing with each other, but the weirdo controls mean that it’s never entirely your own fault when you lose, and of course, everything is just less serious in general.
Ultimately, such handicap features will break competition, too, because rather than the weirdo controls or your stupid AI buddy, you can then blame the handicap. I guess, it also helps to not take games too serious in the first place…
Lastly, I’d like to throw in the objectively best handicap: Having to play cooperatively with the weak player.
Just don’t compete with each other, but rather tackle a challenge together.
I tried replaying the Kingdom Hearts games leading up to playing KH3. Got all the way to the final boss sequence in KH1, but I just couldn’t get past the second phase, and I didn’t have any good saves for going back and leveling up. Gave up. Already beat it as a kid when it first came out. No need to kill myself in my late-30s for it.
For what it’s worth I love the ps5. The ps5 controller absolutely reinvigorated my love of gaming. I know some pc games are getting the adaptive triggers but I do not think it compares.
Not really, it’s just that a lot of guides nowadays are done on youtube. I personally think text guides are superior so I really don’t want gamefaqs to go away.
I don’t think I’ve played anything exclusive to the PS5. Not worth buying in my opinion.
I have played stuff exclusive to the switch, I mostly dislike it though. I’m not sure why, I think it’s that they don’t compete because they have us with their catalogue and I dislike their business practices, selling gimmicks and vaulting content. Especially given most of the switch games are port of Wiiu games then it probably is skippable.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze